Why people with ASD / Autism / AS should not be a neo nazi

Post Reply New Topic

I'm sure this isn't the "Karen" thread, right?
I'm not touching this tangent.

That does seem a rather thoughtless (and ableist, perhaps?) comment to make...Different preople react to different situations in different ways. Just because someone can handle "pressure" in one ("safe"\known\familiar) environment surrounded by people they know (or whose purpose they are aware of) does not mean that they will react in the same way in a different environment around people who they do not know\have no indication of the intentions of, and I'm sure even you may have noticed that the environment in which this encounter occurred was not quite the same as an office...

On a related note, you seem to be very certain that she doesn't have any other conditions which, while normally not a problem for her in her daily life, may have been triggered in this specific situation such as a panic attack\panic disorder, PTSD (Maybe she had been assaulted in the past in similar circumstances), or even a form of "social anxiety"... Could you clarify why you seem to feel that these could not possibly exist in her case, or that if they do, why you feel they are meaningless\should be ignored (I'm sure those on this site with any of these conditions (or similar\related ones) will love to know why you feel the conditions don't have any affect on a person or their actions)?

An agenda? Lmao.

My "agenda" is i am a anti racist. If anyone is being intellectually dishonest, it is you.

CAT FIGHT!!

Ow!

OMG, I didn't realize Bric was female.

Neither did I...

A simple question, then: Has any evidence been supplied to show she would have reacted differently if Mr Cooper was white?

If there is no evidence that she would have done so, can you explain on what basis (other than an assumption regarding how every member of a given race, such as hers, will act (I believe there is a word for that)) are you so certain that the actions she took were "racist"\had "racist" intent (ie: were solely due to his race)?

Yes it was clear this was a race issue. I do not believe she would have gotten hostile and felt uncomfortable if he approached her telling her to put her dog on the leash. At the beginning I was giving her the benefit of the doubt in case you had forgotten when I said in one of my first responses about the incident, she is either afraid of men or she is racist. But then it became more and more clear this was a racial thing and she admitted she lied to the cops so that is all the evidence I needed to hear. Rather she felt threatened or not is irrelevant.

And it's been pointed out many times why calling the cops on a black person is a race thing because they don't need to do anything wrong for the cops to be called on them. Black people have gotten killed by cops because of a bogus 911 call. If you are interested in US black history, read it and read what black people say also about racism and read books by them too if you are interested. It took me awhile to get curious and decide to start looking into it because I was wondering how are white people racist, how am I racist? Oh, what is white fragility? How is everyone a white supremist, I am curious what Laya Seed has to say in her book "Me and White Supremacy."

Few years ago I would have been in the same boat as you; disagreeing this is a race thing and think people want to turn things into a racism issue and make it be about skin color because of my own naivety about racism as well. Many people don't want to approach it because it's uncomfortable even if it doesn't apply to them. Do I think they are being intellectually dishonest, no, I just think they are misinformed and naïve. Now it's become considered racism to refuse to approach the topic and learn about it. Now to not be racist, you have to be anti racist. Some feel this is blackmail or kafka trap they have created for us. "Learn about racism or you are a racist and that is proof you are one."

Well for one thing she wouldn't have used the "African American" trope on her petulant 911 call.

It's not impossible but highly unlikely and in any case "Team Amy" would have dropped any diagnosis she had already to win her a sympathy vote with the courts/public.

Neither did I.

Hmmmm.
I see him her differently now.
Hey, Bricy!
Interested in coffee and cake?

Protesters. Only dishonest people would insist that every protester was a rioter. Try harder.

Oh yes just like how Holocaust deniers are dishonest and so are the flat earthers and the HAES movement and climate deniers and racist deniers.

Question, is it still dishonesty if people actually believe these things because to me dishonesty implies intentional. If people actually believe it, are they still being dishonest if they express these views?

If it's objectively wrong and easily debunked it's hard to take claims of genuine belief seriously. If someone has repeatedly had evidence of the Holocaust presented and continues to deny it (for example) it's fair to stop treating them as just naive or ignorant and start to recognize that they're choosing to remain misinformed.

So your argument is, even though we don't know either way, it's still fair to make a biased assumption in her favor? And it's not like there IS evidence being ignored, you're simply implying that there MIGHT be evidence being ignored. Casting doubt in the absence of doubt is nothing more than suspicion. As for her reaction "not aligning", you say that as though people don't overreact to things all the time. This also implies that she MUST be totally rational, and is not capable of acting irrationally. Even if she did "feel threatened", if it was as a result of bias on her part rather than anything he actually DID (and not what someone imagined him doing), that's still her bias and not his actions causing her to feel the way she does. If among the "information she had available" some of that information was biased or prejudiced, that's still bias, even if she has an excuse.

If you're gonna play the "we don't know and can't know" card, then you're not really in a position to make claims about anything that IS, either way, since your position is that "we don't know". So far most of your reasoning is based on what might-have-been, based on your interpretation of reasoning you're assuming she used.

Why is it fair and reasonable to assume he meant violence, even if, as you say, "we don't know"? If "we don't know", then we don't know, and aren't in a position to make assumptions either way. If her behavior seems reasonable to you, if you believe she behaved appropriately, then perhaps all that means is that you and she share some of the same biased thinking.

So, why is it justified to assume he meant violence? Was it a matter of risk / personal safety? What was the exact danger? Would you still feel her reaction was reasonable if the birdwatcher had been someone else? Other than the vague implication of what someone thinks might happen in their own imagination, why was it reasonable to assume he meant violence? If what MIGHT happen is justification for behavior, then we should all kill everyone we see, because any one of them could be the 1 in 750 people you can statistically meet who are a murderer, and any one of them MIGHT kill you the instant you turn your back.

"Paranoia" is not a valid excuse."But he could have!" Ok. But why is that possibility sufficiently likely that it requires that level of reaction? You keep making the case THAT it was a reasonable reaction, but WHY was it one? Are we to now assume that anything that can be taken as a threat, must mean explicitly a threat of violence? Does that mean any hostility can be taken as assault? What made him a credible threat-to-violence?

What justifies prioritizing her safety at his expense?

If literally everything was exactly the same, and happened the exact same way, but they traded positions - he's now the dog walker, she's now the bird watcher - would you be on his side, cos she'd have "threatened him", and he'd have been "afraid of an act of violence"?